a hard time. the principal reason the unemployment rate has been creeping down is because people have dropped out of the workforce. they have stopped working. they do not count them when they decide how many people are unemployed. if the same share of the workforce who are engaged in looking for a job right now as when the president took office, the unemployment rate would be shown at 11.2%. when paul and i get back to washington, we will put america back to work again. [applause] what you did not hear last night on the president is why it is the next four years could be better. he does not have a way to

explain that. he has the same policy for the next four years. he calls it "forward" and i call it "forewarned." with your help, paul ryan and i will get elected. [cheers and applause] you'll see enterprises a large and small decide to open their doors and expand. we will see the kind of recovery that america needs and deserves. i have confidence in the american people. i know that created and patriotic people in here. we love this country. there is no other nation on earth like it. we are an exceptional nation. i believe that. when the founders wrote that document known as the declaration of independence, they changed the world with

insights that god gave us our rights and not the government. [cheers and applause] these are rights which we have. i love america. my confidence in the future comes from my passion for this country and for the people of this country. do you realize how unusual we are as a people? i do not know how it began, but it is here. it is in our hearts. some years ago when i was serving as governor of my state, the then president of israel came to boston. i happen to have a lunch with him in someone's apartment. someone said to him, "what you think about america's involvement in iraq?"

he said, "before i answer that, i need to put this into context." america is the greatest nation in the history of earth. i say this because of this -- in the history of the earth, whenever there has been war and conflict, the nation that wins takes land away from the nation that loses because land has always been the source of value on the planet." he said, "one nation in history, one nation, has laid on the lives of hundreds and thousands of its sons and daughters and has taken no land. america is unique." [cheers and applause] >> usa! usa! usa! usa!

>> the secretary of state said, the only land america has taken from other lands is enough land to bury our dead. this is a great and exceptional nation. we have people in this nation who prizes freedom and love this country which was based upon the rights given by god. we is extraordinary challenges, but we are an extraordinary people. we need leadership in washington back to work with both parties and get america back on track. we need to restore the principles that made america the shining light on the hill. i love this country. i love the people of this country. i love the prospect we have of getting this country strong again. i can that this country to be strong again with your help. paul ryan and i will get america back on track.

this nation is coming back. we will get our economy going and keep our military strong. we will keep our values first and foremost. thank you. thank you. [cheers and applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪ >> the campaign returns to virginia tomorrow morning. president obama will hold a rally in the fairfax, a

washington, d.c. suburb. also, at 11:35, we will bring you a rally for mitt romney in southwestern virginia. >> we need to tackle our nation poses challenges before they tackle us. we need to save and strengthen social security. we are putting ideas on the table how to do that. we will save benefits for a seniors and for my generation so these promises are kept. >> they have laid out clearly -- they say we have endangered medicare. they have stolen money from medicare to get money for obamacare. you see it and hear it in everything they say. nothing could be further from the truth. >> joe biden and paul ryan will face off in their only debate.

you can watch and engage with c- span on our live debate preview starting at 7:00 eastern followed by the debate at 9:00. your reaction, calls, e-mails, and it reads at 10:30. >> in a little more than an hour and a half, a forum on possible tax increases caused by the so- called fiscal cliff after the first of the year. later, the senate debate in the jersey. on washington journal tomorrow morning, we will be joined by ann coulter. we will talk about politics with katrina vanden heuvel,

editor of "the nation." washington journal is live everyday at 7:00 eastern. >> americans are not the only people to have a september 11 in their national story. in santiago, chile there was a september 11 even that had a dramatic impact on chilean history and memory. military officers on that day had a full-scale assault on their country. it took over radio stations, police stations, and other centers of power. they stormed the presidential palace, charged through guns

blazing. when they were done, the president of chile were dead. a these events led by an army general named agusto. -- augusto pinochet. what most chileans did not know at what many americans still do not know was that the coup of september 11, 1973 was the work of intelligence operatives -- american intelligence operatives that took their orders directly from the white house. >> saturday night at 8:00 eastern and sunday at 1:00 on c- tv." 3's "american history

the editor for publisher of the report. this is an hour and a half. we are going to go ahead and get started. thank you to everyone joining us on the lives drama. those of you also viewing and listening on c-span 2 and the voice of america. i am the senior vice president of the national journal. it is my pleasure to -- just a

few items to give you a sense of what is coming. charlie will be up in a moment and he will give you his take on last night's debate and give us some colorful insight on what we can expect between now and november and possible outcomes for november. he will be joined by two guests, who will join him to offer their perspective on the debate and also the upcoming elections. we are grateful to all of our participants this morning. and it will take questions, so please think about what you will ask. we also invite you to join the conversation via twitter. we welcome your thoughts and insights to their as well. if he would not mind silencing your cell phones, it would help us immensely. we are able to gather under the generosity of united

technologies. it is a diversified company comprised of several well-known brands known to many of you. utc has been a wonderful partner with national journal. they also a partner with us on congressional connection poll, which we conduct while congress is in session to get a sense of what is going on outside of washington and bring that news here. you can be informed via utc and the congressional connection:there. -- congressional connection poll. he leaves all of the federal and state governor affairs as well

as all of the activities in that area, china, russia, and the e u. he is well respected and very well liked. please welcome greg warden. >> thank you for the introduction. welcome. it is nice to have an overflow crowd here. something must have happened last night. i think it was probably the nats coming in first place. [applause] this will be a great session. we have had a long affiliation with the national journal as well as personally with charlie. it is always a great event to participate in. this is an exciting morning after the debate. it looks like we might have a presidential race here. 33 days to go. i know everyone is looking forward to hearing from charlie.

thank you for being here. [applause] >> i think all of the dutch early cut. that is why you are here. for 13 years he has been providing his research and analysis and our daily publication. he and his team put together some of the best political reports in town. they are red and valued by both sides of the political aisle. at a time when the news and affirmation has become so polarized, charlie remains one of the most respected analyst to everybody in the country providing and often humorous take on the sport of politics. he has been called the best political handicapper. many of us thinks he walks on water. please welcome charlie cook. [applause]

>> if i can walk on water, it must be pretty thick. anyway, thank you all for coming. if i am one of the most respected -- that is a lobar in this town. anyway, thank you very much. greg and i have been friends for over 25 years. this relationship with united technologies has been great. you guys are in prince william county, and they are prince george's county. anyway, thank you all for coming out. this is -- i wanted it to greg and fred because they are two of the best pollsters in the business.

they are very, very large and the enormously high quality and well regarded. they are longtime good friends. i want to have plenty of time with those guys. just some quick reaction to what happened last night. unfortunately, i had to do a column that i had to hand in yesterday morning before the debate. it is not coming out until friday. although, i just got an e-mail from my editor who was suggesting tweaking it a little bit. i am not sure what they will end up doing with it. the. i tried to make is that unfortunately everyone tries to make everything by neary. a race is either too close to call or it is over. there is nothing in between. in going into this debate, this

really was an in-between situation. president obama was a head. it was something in the swing states was probably more durable than the national numbers. and gov. romney desperately needed to shake the race up. something had to change the trajectory in this election. it needed to be something very substantial. here we are now with something that is a momentous event in the realm of debates. this is something much more decisive i think that pretty much any other debate than any of us here can remember. i thought gov. romney did a fabulous job on both the relative basis. comparing mitt romney with performances that we usually see, quite fabulous. on a nominal basis, he did very,

very well. i think it is true to say president obama is a superior or turk. i think mitt romney is a better debater. romney, you know, we saw something that we had not seen in a long time. it occurred to me that this reminded me more of the mitt romney i met in 1994 when he was running for the senate and came by and met with me and was incredibly an impressive and analytical and fact driven and pragmatic. this was that guy, not so much the person who had been pretending to be an ideologue for the past few years. obama seemed to be like a team sitting on a lead. i would not have said smog it, i

would have just said somebody who did not seem to be terribly hungry for it. -- i would not say smug, just somebody that was not hungry for it. i did not really big in these examples after, i do not particularly care for them. -- these instant polls, i didn't care for them. when you see who did the best job, obama 25, romney 67. obama did better than expected 21%, worse than expected 61%. romney did 82% better than expected, at 10% said they thought he did worse than they expected. my guess is the 10% or partisans. democracy first, a democratic polling firm. romney has a good night, but no evidence of changing the game.

i agree with them completely on the first that romney had a good night. i think we will have to see a minute whether it changed the game. walmart sponsored their walmart focus groups with momentum analysis, a democratic polling firm, one of glen's partners together. they suggested a monster lot of walmart moms, it was a win for romney. the people in the groups were divided between a win for romney or a tie. on the other hand, it said they were disappointed with the president's performance. they do not think he made the case for how another four years would be better. they made the point that neither one of these guys really connected with voters on a personal level, but i think romney did a superior job of

debating it. we will be seeing a lot of reviews over the next few days. i think the key thing for us to watch, no question mitt romney won the debate. how much does this change things? in national polls he will get a few points out of this. the more relevant. is that, number one, does he moved ohio and does he move swing voters and swing states? that is what is relevant here. i have no idea. my view has come to be over the past few weeks that, you show me and undecided voters in a swing state like, say, ohio, and they have been bombarded by ads since june, and the undecideds there were a lot smaller than a nationally, 45 points, and i had concluded that if you are in

ohio and still undecided that you may never be side. you probably are not going to vote. wrong may be something with you anyway. i am not being dismissive that this cannot change them, but the thing about it is, we should be careful about imposing. everybody watching this on c- span or everyone in this room, they will all be very attentive to people. we are paying a lot of attention to this. we probably need to be a little careful about how some pretty passive people who do not like politics or politicians who are cynical and skeptical and sour, whether their reactions will be the same as ours. this is a consequential the event.

i say this without any hesitation at all. had this on the other way -- had mitt romney not done well in -- i think this would have been game set to match. republicans were starting to get nervous. i think you were on the verge of seeing a lot of money being read task over for republicans to hang on to the house for absolute sure and make a desperate push to get every possible senate seat because this romney thing is not going to happen. that was what was about to happen if mitt romney turned in a poor performance. not only did he escape that, but he turned in an extremely strong one and the president was clearly flat. the question is, how much does this move in ohio, virginia, florida, and colorado?

we will have a great discussion and you will hear from two of the smartest people in the business. i think we probably need to -- we can talk about it and discuss this, but sort of look at the polls -- tonight is thursday night, friday night -- start looking at polls sunday, monday, and tuesday. you will get all samples and after the debate and after people have had conversations and the supermarket aisle or the backyard fence and see where this is. clearly this is a game changing event. how much does it change? swing states are what matters. i think we will have a lot of fun. just 100 words or less. i do not think even the yesterday before the debate --

and our view the house was not in play. democrats were going to get somewhere between -- they needed 25 seats to take a majority. it would be somewhere a wash and the democrats picking up 10 seats. there was no evidence whatsoever that this was heading toward 15 or 20 or 25 seats, particulate when you consider the democrats because they have 10 of their own seats they might lose. it did not look that bad. it sure as hell does not look like that now in the aftermath of the debate. i will make one prediction. i think there is a very fair chance that on noon on wednesday, the day after the election, we may not know who will be the majority in the u.s.

senate. we are looking at about 10 tossup races. a lot of these are 1 point races. my colleague pointed out that when this class of senate seats were last up that we had three states, montana, va., for. a million people voted total. those three state senate races and the majority status of the u.s. senate were decided by 66,600 votes out of 4.8 million. it was hanging by a thread. that is how close it was. quite frankly, i think there are seven races that could be decided by, pick a number, 200,000 votes total nationwide.

this not only controlling the senate to but by several seed margins one way or the other. there is an enormous amount of volatility in the senate picture. we will see how it plays out. glen and fred, why don't you join me. i will ask them a handful of questions. and we will open up to the audience and let you guys ask questions. >> you are on my left. that is awesome. i have the republican on my left. anyway, thank you for joining us. i know you guys are incredibly busy. how many races are you working on right now?

>> one at a time. [laughter] >> give us a ballpark. >> 15 to 20. >> your from a set up a little differently. >> a lot. >> these guys are saying an enormous amount of data every week. -- seeing an enormous amount of data every week. i'm going to put fred on the spot. it was not a good night. what was your reaction to last night? >> first of all, as a yankees fan, a nats fan, and a romney fan, it was a pretty good night. thank you for having fred and i.. thank you to national journal and utc for having us. i am a huge fan of yours jet

engines, particularly when they work. so that is good. i am still here, so that is a good sign. i think the two factors from last night are, how much did mitt romney help his image? the bigger gap was not so much in the poll's -- we have seen a number showing two or 3. -- it was in the favorability of the candidates. romney came across as somebody who was more genuine than they had realized and somebody they could see as stepping into the oval office and having no problems doing that. i am not sure any other republican running would have been able to pull that off last night. i am being generous. the other factor is, these instead polls, we do our dialing

for the most part between 5:00 and at 9:00 p.m. at night. on the east coast and the midwest, how do you do a national poll -- you start dialing at when everyone is going to bed unless they are sick and staying up and watching the post debate discussions. i did not even do that. among undecideds -- look, the first decision they make is, do i want to vote for barack obama? he is the incumbent, the guy in charge for the last four years. if they are undecided, the answer has been no. there is something they are concerned about with mitt romney, which is why they are undecided. in 10 states, two weeks ago, there were 6% of the voters undecided.

that is a pretty significant amount. it sounds like a small number, but a pretty significant amount. did that 6% look at romney last night and say, this is somebody i feel a lot better about than i did coming into this debate. some were not paying attention and some were. for those who were not -- who were paying attention, the answer has to be yes. i think you will see a bump in the polls for romney. 67% believed that romney won the debate. that is a stunning number. usually, our side thinks our guy one and their side thinks there got one. -- thinks their guy won. it was pretty decisive.

>> explain to a group of people -- i doubt there is an undecided voter in this room. what do undecided voters look like? >> the kind of people who tell the waiter to come back at a restaurant because they have not made up their mind. [laughter] when you look at undecided voters, they generally tend to be younger women than anything else. in this case, i am seeing an even division between men and women. they tend to be more independent. they are either somewhat conservative to moderate. only 18% of the undecided voters in the swing states say the country is going in the right direction. 70% say it is on the wrong track. that is much more negative than the country as a whole. that is why i believe romney is poised to pick up some of them. >> anybody who thinks the next

debate will be the same as this one, i think they are making a mistake. of what is going to say, let's throw that playbook out and try something different. -- obama is going to say, let's throw that playbook out and try something different. >> the debate was over and i thought, romney did pretty good. obama seemed pretty flat. watching the post-debate and some this morning, the romney performance went from here to here in the analysis. as someone who, if you want to or not, pushed back a little bit -- push back a little bit but keep in mind x. tell us how well the president did. >> or try to avoid it.

>> first, i would like to thank charlie and the "national journal" for this event. i think both glen and i would agree, charlie is someone that both of us can trust because he plays it right down the line. >> i am also thin and handsome. >> i have to deal with the reality. [laughter] i like what glenn said. -- what glen said. the issue for governor romney was likability. i do not think he has -- i do not think he has had a lot of time to show likability. what he did last night was a single-minded focus on what his

strength is and what the concern of the country is. i think he did his job. for all of us in this room who are probably not undecided, i think the campaign kickoff, i do not know, 2009. for a lot of us who are consumers of news and followers of politics, the convention's probably start it. this is the campaign. for the undecided voters in ohio and other places, and i know it is weird to state with all of the ads they are watching. let me back it up. there are a lot of ads that are playing. it does not mean everybody is

watching them all of the time. for the average person, i think the campaign started last night. we have a long time left to go still. what mitt romney -- mitt romney did what he had to do. he made this a much more competitive general election. i think president obama, i do not think he did as badly as the pundits are saying this morning. i think, the next debate, he will probably have a different demeanor. the debate last night was much more important to mitt romney than barack obama. i do not know how much this changes the landscape. this race is very competitive. if you look at the eight battleground states, depending on the polls, president obama is winning all of them, but the margins are pretty close. what the debates could do for

democrats and the president and also the voters it signals the game is on. i think you will see much more enthusiasm. people talk about research and p.o.s. does the polling for one sub-group, latinos -- >> so you're the conspirators on the left wing of the polling. >> barack obama is ahead by 50 points with latinos. the question is, their enthusiasm was less than 2008. that is another aspect. >> my thinking had been, while it was mathematically possible for romney to get the electoral votes without ohio, michigan, pennsylvania, that was like a three or four-cushion shot in

pool. is ohio what we should be looking at more than anything else? >> that is a good question. it is much easier for mitt romney to win the presidency if he wins ohio. i entered this election cycle believing that there were three key states instead of just florida and ohio. i would add virginia to that list. the next half level down is north carolina. clearly, governor romney is stronger in florida and virginia. those are very competitive states right now. all i know is someplace where he does need a significant comeback.

fred's points are well-taken. for a lot of voters, the election started last night. if he is going to have a comeback in ohio, it started last night. >> president obama won last time, beating senator mccain by seven points. part of it was 66% of the vote among 18-29-year-old, a large percentage of latino voters, african-americans were like 95% to 4% or something like that. the african-american support is very strong. let's assume parity for this time. as you suggested, the turnout levels among latino voters and, i would add, young voters, is very much questionable. when i go on campuses, i cannot

find a pulse. there might be a couple of people behind the table to register people and nobody in front of the table, registering. there is no pulse there. is it safe to say that a seven- point margin becomes six or five or four, ticking turnout down among these two groups. by necessity, this will be a lot closer. >> in 2008, the president had a seven-point margin. a seven-point margin for a democrat is big.

that is a historic margin. all of us expected this to be a closer race. the thing that we should look for, with early voting, we have metrics. one of the things about campaigns, on every side, north carolina, half of the voters will have voted before election day. you can track that every day. who they are and, more importantly, how they voted. in campaigns, from presidential down to city council, every aspect matters. field, message, turnout, tv. the air wars get coverage because they are on tv but the ground wars are just as important. in a poll that our two firms collaborated on, the president was winning among independent voters by 13 points.

in 2008, he defeated john mccain by 8% of independents. let's see where polls settle. i will be looking at the independent numbers. the other thing about barack obama's election, he won 43% of the white vote. in most of the national polls, that is where he is. look, the country is changing. in 2008, three-quarters of the electorate was white, down from the mid to high-80's. that number is going to change. in a close election -- i do not think anybody thought it would be a seven-point race.

the metrics are there for him to win. >> to me, the most stunning numbers from 2008 -- if you take out 18-29-year-old and look just at 30 plus, mccain and obama tied. that shows you how important the youth vote is to the president. that is why you see air force one showing up near -- at airports near major universities. they recognize that fact. john mccain beat barack obama 55-43 among white voters. george w. bush, in 2000, beat al gore among white voters 55- 43. the margin was the same. how did gore and bush is essentially tied?

you might not know this, but bush won the election. [laughter] in the electoral college, a cool thing that is in the constitution. eight years later, what was essentially a popular vote tie becomes 87-point below. fred talks about how hard it is for a democrat to win a seven- point margin. republicans cannot. it is impossible. if mitt romney wins the popular vote, it will be by .02, if at all. the party has to figure out how to do much better with minority voters. african-americans, it will be hard for us to get their vote for a while because the president is black. republicans have to do significantly better than we are doing right now.

in the future, we have to do significantly better with latino voters. >> the republican political model is not sustainable, the current one. it has to change. one technical question -- when i look at various polls, and a lot of times the top numbers look very reasonable and consistent, and when you start looking at splits, it starts getting more erratic. i see more independent numbers all over the map. it seems to vary enormously. is it how they were the party id question, the position in question? i have seen polls that have had romney ahead by four or six points, which is obviously not

what the wall street journal poll had. is there any reason other than when you start tightening it up, the margin of error goes up? >> there should not be that much variation. when you were asking that question, i was thinking one of the explanations could be a couple of days' difference. unlike democrats or republicans, they do not have roots. i am a democrat. i pretty much know how i am going to vote. >> mt "national journal" colleague went through a lot of research and points to non- college educated white women as a group that has moved some in the last couple of weeks.

non-college educated white men are a no-fly zone for the president. but the women were up for grabs. have you noticed anything like that? is that a metric you are looking at? >> it is. everybody talks about the women's vote. there are a number of factors. people do not realize this -- john mccain won white women by seven points. that is not enough to win overall. obviously, he lost by seven points. when you look at white women voters, there are groups that are more likely to vote republican. those include white women without college degrees, white women who are married, and women with children. when you look at the differences between white women who are married and white women

who are single, whether it be they are not married, they are widowed, or they are divorced, those groups vote overwhelmingly for obama. if ron is right and the president is making gains with non-college educated white women, that is problematic for our side. i have not seen as much as -- as much of a shift as he has. >> let's open it up. >> everyone says -- >> are we doing mics? >> people say that the vp choice does not matter, but they are next up. given what happened last night, is it important, the debate? is it going to mean that people are going to, based on what happened last night, say, yes, i am going to for sure before romney? -- for sure be for romney?

does it have that kind of impact? >> toomey, this is going to be a close race. -- to me, this is going to be a close race. in close races, everything matters more. i think it will. historically, vice presidential debates do not matter a lot. somebody last night was making the point that bentsen destroyed dan quayle. it did not make a difference, but he destroyed him. i do not know. do one of you want to take a swing at it? >> there are two presidential debates after that one. i think it will be more watched by folks like us, who are

interested in politics. the overall electorate will pay attention more to the presidential. i am not downplaying the importance of the vice- presidential, anything can make a difference. but it would be surprising. >> it is like the olympics, when they had the basketball games for the bronze medal. everyone is waiting for the champion of the gold medal game. but it is the only debate next week. it will drive some of the coverage. it will either continue the momentum that romney has after last night or it will be seen, if vice-president biden does well, it will be seen as the first step for the obama team to get its footing back. in the world we live in now, where everything is analyzed instantaneously, even before it happens, i think it is a meaningful event next week. >> it is important until the next presidential debate and

then it becomes fairly irrelevant. >> it is important until it is over. >> they should have a disclaimer -- this debate is for entertainment purposes only. >> chicago is saying, thank god we have biden to pick us up after last night. [laughter] >> if first impressions are the most important and if the average american really tuned in for the first time, would that suggest that the next two presidential debates are less important? what is your opinion on how much the second and third presidential debates can matter? >> i think they are still very significant. it seems like ancient history

now, but reagan's first debate against mondale did not go well and he turned it around in the second debate. what everybody wanted to happen, in terms of the voters, they wanted to reelect reagan because things were going well. they breathed a sigh of relief and nobody remembers much from the first debate. i think it would be premature to say that it is one and done after last night. >> i agree. the next two will be very important also. >> we should also mention, glen's firm, a partner is governor romney's pollster. fred's firm is doing the primary super pac on the democratic side. everybody has dogs in the fight. i have been very, very, very

critical of the romney campaign, the part that glen's partner has not been at fault in. other aspects have been critical and i think there are things that need to happen, romney needed to connect on a personal level and it may have happened last night. part of this may be getting some task completed that probably should have happened in june, july, august, or at the convention. he made up for some lost ground here. i think the next two debates, or if it is a really close race, it is now going to be a really, really close race. on the very back row, up against the window.

>> one demographic that i do not think has come up this morning is senior citizens 65 and older. could you talk about how you are seeing polls of that demographic change to the extent that the election of paul ryan and his liabilities on medicare is becoming a problem for the romney campaign and perhaps in some of the senate races. >> who would like to go first? >> in 2008, if we look at the exit polls, president obama lost seniors by 8 points. in 2010 midterm elections, when the exit polls aggregated, democrats lost seniors by 20, which was one reason why 2010

happened, which i would like to forget. looking to our nbc-wall street journal poll, the president was trailing the seniors by close to the 2008 margins, nine points. i think paul ryan is a very smart person. clearly, the romney team must feel he is qualified to be vice- president of the united states. as a democratic analyst, to us, it re-ignited the whole medicare issue. we had spent a lot of time talking about the ryan plan. sometimes, we would talk about the ryan plan without saying "the ryan plan" because people did not know who paul ryan was. now they do.

we have done polling and seen is an effective message for democrats against republicans, to talk about the ryan plan. >> let me push back a little here. >> go right ahead. [laughter] >> a day or two before governor romney made his decision about his running mate, i was talking to another pollster. runs the democracy corps. they have been trying to use the ryan plan to beat republican members of congress over the head. like you said, nobody knew who paul ryan was. as we were getting off the phone, i said, i will give you this. i do not think governor romney is going to pick paul ryan. but if he does, we will have another conversation.

it strikes me that democrats have not effectively made medicare and the rhine plan -- the ryan plan, i have seen the polling and how it moves people. i have not seen them in flicked a lot of bodily damage on republicans on the ryan plan, on medicare, so far. am i missing something? has it had a meaningful effect or not? >> the quick answer would be, we will find out in 33 days. >> apparently, we are going to find out in 33 days. [laughter]

the first observation i make is that there is this presumption in the press, boy, paul ryan, what a risky mistake he was. test polls show that paul ryan generally has a better image than joe biden. if joe biden is the answer, i do not want to know what the question is. secondly, senior citizens -- republicans have to -- we have had decades of dealing with democratic demagoguery on issues like social security, medicare, or both. the first page in democratic campaign plans is minority turnout. the first page in republicans' is, how do we make sure we do not get hurt among senior citizens? this is something our campaigns are very aware of.

we have had messages that we have tested. yes, it is effective. you test a democratic attack versus a republican response, and it basically plays to a tie. i do not think it will be the game-changer that democrats think that it is. the one thing to keep an eye on are the near-seniors. seniors are already getting medicare, social security. they know that the rug is not going to be pulled out from under them because there would be a huge price to pay. the near-seniors are more concerned, more moving around in our polling. that is a group that we are targeting as well. >> as a near-senior, let me pick phil. >> could you discussed the

impact of motor suppression efforts on election results versus polling results? we have seen an increase, in the last few years, in voter suppression efforts, such as the recent conviction in maryland. this year, we have seen the requiring of photo ids and such. how do you account from that in polling, especially given that there are about 10 lawsuits pending that could negate some of the new laws that are intended to require photo ids for voters? >> first observation is, in terms of the case in maryland, that was one misguided example.

never should have happened. the race was not that close. it was a huge mistake by that individual and he paid for it with a time in prison. in terms of your concerns about voter i.d., and having to show id, i live in virginia and just got my voter card. they allow any kind of thing, a utility bill, or anything like that. it is a lot easier to vote then to get on an airplane. if you are worried about fraud, i think that these are reasonable requirements. >> in terms of polling, to the extent that both firms can, we try to pull a registered voter list. registered voters who have presumably -- i mean, we try to sample who have not only registered -- people who have

not only registered but voted in the last election. >> in a lot of states, they have to have a photo id. how do you account for that? >> our callers asked you to show them your folder id -- your photo i.d. >> not a lot that you can do. some places, they have been thrown out or put aside for this election. for me, i have no problem requiring an id as long as, number one, the government makes a proactive efforts to go to people who are qualified and registered to vote but do not have ids -- i wonder, for example, in some states, why does an expired driver's license not work? did your identity change?

you are 93 years old. your driver license expired four years ago. what is the problem there? and that it is kosher. in other words, a concealed carry permit in texas is allowed. why it is a university of texas student i.d. not counted? above and beyond that, i do not think it is particularly onerous. most people in society, unless they are in homes, institutionalize settings, they do have ids. the government can do things to help those people get ideas. that should be part of the deal.

let's go back to the center. >> i was wondering if you could comment on the format for the three debates and how you see that connecting with the two candidates. >> we are speechless. first of all, i thought the debate last night -- i was stunned at how the moderator let himself get walked over by the candidates in terms of the timing. it was like the two minutes did not matter. when i am about to die, i want barack obama's 5 seconds,

because they lasted forever. [laughter] on the other hand, i thought it was pretty good. people are like, there is so much policy in this debate. these two people showed that they are both very smart people and they both could be president. one by virtue of being president and the other by virtue of their showing last night. i thought it worked out really well in terms of the back and forth. it was more of a debate than a dinner talk or something. >> i agree. as a political fall or, like all of you are, -- a political follower, like all of you are, i liked the elasticity. just let them talk.

i do not think it affected the performance of either candidate. it was what it was. i thought it was neat that they were talking a lot. >> it was more british style than american-style, which was good. >> do i think that jim lehrer was a weak moderator? yes. that is okay. it is not about the moderator. it is about the candidates, not the moderator showboating. i thought it was good. >> if you asked both sides, the romney folks would say romney -- irani folks would say obama talked longer and the obama side would say romney talk longer. >> president obama talked about 5 minutes or so -- 4.5 minutes more than romney. but i think romney was better.

less was more. on the side of the room, yes, sir. >> i was wondering, have you seen any differences in the senate races where republicans associate with the tea party? if not, how could turn out affect that? -- how could turnout affect that? >> there are a lot of important races in november, not just the presidential. i do not know the answer. there are a lot of very close senate races, like charlie was talking about, in states that product -- in states that romney is probably going to win. missouri, north dakota, arizona.

there are 4 states where democratic senate candidates are running very competitively with republican candidates in republican states. i just did a poll and joe connolly was ahead by two points. another truism of american politics is that people usually vote their party. i think that is going to be an interesting dynamic the next 4.5 weeks. massachusetts is a good example from the republican perspective. president obama is clearly going to run well there. ken scott brown withstand the blue tide there? -- can scott brown withstand the blue tide there? you have a candidate in indiana who succeeded the incumbent in that the primary. you have a solid republican

candidates. i was in arizona about a month ago, where democrats are competitive. it shows that these races are still fluid. you can be undecided and we can say that the race for undecided voters started yesterday. it will still be a couple of weeks before they really engaged. i do not know if people vote in races like a chess game. one from aisle a, one from aisle b. one thing we have not talked about is the fundamental dissatisfaction americans have with government. president, senate, congress, and governor, how do they make those choices? >> i have to agree with fred, for the most part. you look at indiana.

if lugar had won his primary, i know indiana would not have been on anybody's map. that is not how it is here it is a very tight race. fred alluded to the fact that, given that romney should win at state, i would be shocked if democrats are talking that up as a when already. these are races that will go down to the wire. there are a number of them throughout the country, whether it is tea party-related or not. >> i can think of some exceptions, but unlike 2010, the tea party movement is not a top-of-mind concern for me right now. murdoch clearly identifies with the tea party movement. ted cruz, in texas, clearly associated with that movement. i do not consider todd a. can -- todd akin, he is more of a social conservative associated with the movement. most of the people i know before president obama was writ -- was elected were tea party republicans. i am not sure most of these faults voted for obama in 2008 and became t. party people in 2009 -- tea party people in

2009. it is not a thing i am looking at quite so much this time. to me, you see enormously- talented candidates and some that are not very good and whether they are catching on. two places that have surprised me is hawaii. i think the former governor is a terrific candidate. she has run a great campaign,

done everything right. it is a pretty democratic place. does not seem to be happening. that surprised me. conversely, in connecticut, with linda mcmahon, my read was she spent $70 million in the best republican year since 1994 and loses. i did not think she would have

much of a chance. she is now running ahead. she is a better candidate and has run a better campaign. she has a democratic opponent who has turned out to be far more problematic and has some issues that a lot of us were not familiar with. finally, women voters held the wrestling thing against linda mcmahon so much last year. they seemed to have moved -- they seem to have moved beyond it. she is running very well and arguably, ahead. the tea party thing is not something that is on the top of my mind this year. thes go to this side of room. >> i wanted to ask about the 2004 analogy. you have not honed in on this. basically, we are headed for a 2004 election. not a very popular president, the elitist guy. the president was more of a man

that you wanted to have a beer with. that changed last night, at least for a moment. romney was the one who was approachable and obama was the pedantic professor. how do you turn it back to that original dynamic? for romney, how do they continued down the same trajectory? for the first time, we knew he had a pulse as a living individual. [laughter] >> that is a great question. the thing that has been impressive for president obama, in the polls, is his likability factor. it is not just, is the more down-to-earth? it is the whole obama package,

the family. people connect with them, even anti-obama voters. i think the hardest thing to do is to advise a campaign that has been running for four years. i do not work for them. they no way more about what they are facing than i do. my advice to them would be very simple. they have a lot of things to worry about. i think he needs to close the deal. he needs to say, it is not about mitt romney anymore. what last night showed, it is about barack obama. i do not think they ever ran as if they had this in the bag. the analysts say, he was 20 points ahead and now it is a tie game. they always do this in a close election. as we head into novemberheadtheir number one imperative is to answer the

question. -- as we head into november, their number one imperative is to answer the question. we have done it before and we can do it again. when they answer that question, that is when they will win the election? >> there is no question that the president is well-liked and there are also a lot of folks who do not care for him as much. a lot of people look at him and admire him. i admire him. he has played golf 104 times in the last four years. i would love to come anywhere close to that. in terms of the romney campaign, i cannot talk to my

partner in boston, who has been during the campaign, because i am doing a lot of work for the super pacs. whenever we talk, it is about the nationals, or his redskins and my giants. i will hold off on giving advice to the romney campaign. they have a lot of people giving them advice. i hope they are able to capitalize on this new-found momentum. >> to your point about 2004, i thought the obama campaign ought to be paying royalties to karl rove. i think they studied that 2004 race very closely. on certain things, applied it very well. for example, take one of your opponents most important strengths and turn it into a weakness. john kerry's war record and turn it into a weakness. mitt romney's business

experience, turn it into a weakness. after a certain point, do not blow your whole campaign war chest going after people who may never end up going your way. instead, go back and try to find out how to inflate the turnout among your base using technology and micro targeting. i think the obama campaign has done extremely well with that. 2004, if you are going to look at a model, that is one to look at in terms of the strategy employed in this campaign, at least on the obama side. >> i doubt that karl is going every day to check his mail box for that check. [laughter] >> that is pretty safe. we are going to the middle and then we are going back over that way, to that side.

>> i was just wondering, both candidates showed they are qualified to be president last night. i was wondering if you thought the demeanor was the main factor as opposed to the actual message that they were saying and the points they were making? they both had their own facts and statistics. i was wondering if you thought it was all about the way they came out and the energy they had or if what they were saying had as big an effect as the perception of how they are doing and how excited they are to be there. >> the first observation is, clearly, the aarp has lowered its age. [laughter] it is a good thing that you identify yourself. image is important. the president heard himself with that last night.

i do not think it romney side should think he will be like that in the next debate. they will look at that and say, that is not how we want to project. you go back to the tapes and break it down, romney had a lot of good, substantive points that he got across. from a policy standpoint, i thought it was pretty rich. when people were complaining that they got too deep into policy and too much in the woods, well, usually the complaint is that there is not enough substance and it is too much style. from that standpoint, i thought it was a pretty good debate for the american people. it one difference was that clearly, mitt romney came fired up and ready to go. and obama almost looked like

george h. w. bush, checking his watch. >> i do not think we saw the same debate, all of us. i do not think the president's demeanor was especially checked out. he talked longer than mitt romney, so clearly, he was engaged. why the analysis of the debate is the way it is, from my perspective, it is not so much how the president did. he did fine. there were moments that he did well and there were moments that he did not do well. i think why last night was important was because of how

well governor romney performed. as a political analyst, not putting on my partisan hat, to meet, -- to me, when you watch football games, you can see when they are trying to establish the run. even i can figure that out. i did not think he was going for likability. i thought he was going for what his strengths were and should be, the economy. i am focused on the economy. this is what i have done and this is what i will do. to me, from the moment of the debate, it was clear that that was what he was all about. he executed over the last 1.5 hours. >> it is the historic norm. if you are in the democrat in a competitive nomination, you run to the left and pivot back to the middle. romney ran unsuccessfully in 2008 for the nomination. he had been running to the right

for four years. it becomes a condition that behavior. i think he was slow making the turn back and heading towards swing voters. i did not see him doing that effectively until his convention speech. and then really, really, really last night. last night was the first time this campaign that he struck me as the guy that i saw in 1994 who ran and served as governor. he was as close to mitt romney 1.0 as opposed to 2.0 or 30, back to the is. -- or 3.0, back to who he is. i think this is romney.

i think he has been a longtime proponent of something else and has had a long time to get back to his roots. i wondered if he could get back and he did. obviously, a strong performance. there was somebody wasyes -- there was somebody, yes, sir. >> i am chris nelson. >> do i know you? >> good to see you. speaking as an aarp member -- [laughter] long standing. people have been indicating that they are tired of this partisanship. may be unified government was a way to make things work

together. it fits a little bit with what we have been talking about, making yourself more appealing to independents and things like that. is there any sense in thinking about how one candidate or the other can preach the patriotism of bipartisanship, the patriotism of -- or are we kidding ourselves? >> i think you saw some of that from governor romney last night when he talked about his experience in massachusetts, when the legislature was 87% democratic and he worked with them every week, all the time. he managed to get his health care plan passed with only 2%

dissension in the vote. i think you saw that from him. in terms of a broader picture, this is not a knock, generally want what you don't have. when it's one-party control, you tend to have elections like 2006 or 2010, the party that controls everything gets slapped down. and then when you have what you have now, where you've got split control and the democrats have two-thirds and republicans have a third of washington, you hear a lost frustration and people say, boy, i think we would be better off with one party control until they get it. and then they say, you know, be careful what we wished for. >> going once, twice, three times. somebody in that cornerback there. yes? >> eileen schleff, creative lions communications hispanic link news service. i have two comments. last night the substance, mr. romney, throwing around a lot of comments, is that a good debate?

no one had any plans and i have to say the president didn't take credit for some of the things he is doing. and my second question is minorities are very scared of the voter i.d. it's being glossed over that it has happened over and over and i would like you to comment on your polling and if you're involved with any hispanic and black leadership on what's being done to make sure the vote gets out. >> i would disagree with the first part where i thought it was one of the more substantive debates i have seen in a while. you know, and i was watching some of the meters when romney was going through his five- point plan, his numbers went straight up. i thought there was, you know, i don't think it was vague. i don't think they were either vague. i think it was quite a bit of specificity and a lot of substance. but i don't know whether --

>> some of the most substantive debate i can remember in terms of policy and plans and everything in a long, long time. maybe the bar set so low it's not hard to get over it. i was kind of surprised. >> yeah. i guess what is substance these days? especially in the modern debate or communications. i guess my summation would be you had a very good sense of these two gentlemen's philosophy. and approach to government. and, you know, substance will save it for c-span. >> you know, to the second part of your question, i guess my reaction is that -- i say this as someone who was born and raised in louisiana. i don't think there is any significance voter fraud in this country. widespread organized voter

fraud. i think the bush justice department found 400 individual cases in eight years so that works out to one case per state per year which seems to me, you know, fairly light. so i think a lot of what's going on, do i think that a lot of republicans and conservatives, do i think if you gave them shots of sodium pentathol and wired them up to polygraph machine and asked them is there a significant vote fraud problem in this country, i think overwhelmingly they would say yes and pass that lie detector test. now i don't think there really is but i think they're convinced of it. but i think there is some political opportunism that's taking place out there as well. and i don't really -- i mean if glen wants to jump in, he can. but i'm not sure i want to make republican consulting get up and say something to get him in trouble with folks in his party's base. but -- i know john fund at "the

wall street journal" has -- is sort of leading a charge on establishing voter fraud as major problem. but to me it's kind of sporadic, episodic and sheriff's race someplace is probably more likely to be stolen then presidential or senator u.s. house race. >> what trace would that be, -- what race would that be, charlie? let's talk about that. >> i think it's sort of a solution in search of a problem. but i don't -- i think a lot -- i think a lot of the republican concerns are very, very sincere but the florida situation, florida republican party, i mean these kinds of things happen on both sides but i don't think it's -- i don't think there's a huge problem but at the same time, you know, in life most of us need i.d.'s to go about our daily lives and i think we ought to try to do something to get photo i.d.'s, official

photo i.d.'s in the hands of voters to help them get to their lives up to and including voting. but anyway -- one last, i will throw a last question to the guys. >> thanks. looking back at the 2004 election and strategy president bush and his team implored, when you look at the cycle, we know it will be a close race. what i see on the ground game is the obama campaign thinking and really planning on the field a lot more than governor romney's campaign has. an example is when you look at ohio, romney campaign has 36 field offices where as obama campaign has 96 field offices. same thing in virginia and other states. seems they were planning for a while if it's going to be a

close race and at the end of the day comes down to the ground game, how do you move 3% to 5% vote out to the polls. can you talk a little bit about that? >> well, i think our size advantage was since january 2009, president obama pretty much knew he was going to be the democratic nominee in 2012. so he could plan for four years. and i think, you know look, i think we were all like really happy with the results of 2008. every08's don't come year. i mean that was unique. i think they smartly recognized they can see four years away it will be a close election and they planned ahead. i think any campaign again from city council to president, you have to do two things and two things well. you have to win the message war. that's why debates and strategy is important.

but you also have to win the ground game. one thing they could do from the beginning was the ground game. you know, we all know where the battleground states are. i think one of the great things of 2008 from the democrats' perspective was not how many new and different people got engaged from a political process and i think the obama campaign clearly with the 96 field offices in ohio has done a very good job of keeping those people engaged. to help out with -- it's all four years of activity and planning for basically the 30- day sprint. i think that's hidden -- that's an advantage we have going into election day. >> i'm going to turn to glen in a second. just to echo or maybe take a look slightly word it differently then what fred said, i think that the obama campaign, we know they've got the obama campaign has a fabulous ground game. we can't tell yet how good -- it may -- romney effort may be

fabulous or not be or may be in between, we don't know that. but to echo something that fred said, the obama campaign has to have a better ground game because of the challenge they have motivating and getting young and latino voters out. don't think the ground game, thereby nice for the african- american community because i think the african-american community is motivated where they don't necessarily need organizational effort but young people and latinos it's a challenge. so it's essential for the obama campaign to have a very aggressive ground game because two groups were so important with victory last time and are not going to be there on their own devices without a lot of motivational effort. i think they have to. >> that's an important point. a couple observations. i don't know how good the romney ground game will be. i know it will be miles ahead

for 2008 for mccain. from that standpoint, you know, it's going to be just significantly better. secondly, fred made a good point which is the president actually, i disagree it wasn't january '09. he would be unopposed or not seriously challenged when hillary said yes to the secretary of state job. i think they've had time to plan where as romney campaign, first had to win a primary than primary went on for the nomination went on for a long time. so that kind of cut into organizational effort. but i think you're going to see the best republican ground game, i agree with charlie, republican motivation is sky high. i don't know they need quite the same ground game there. to me the romney campaign's challenge, republican side challenge, is more on winning the message side of things then turnout.

republican turnout will be strong this time around. >> we have five minutes left. what i would like for glen and fred is take your campaign strategist's hat off and as to really smart guys, really smart students of public opinion who have been in washington for 25 years -- >> a while. >> yes, yes. >> looking at thinking about after the election and, yes, there are various permutations of what happens in the presidential race and senate race and house that are important, but thinking about things that need to happen by december 31 in terms of physical cliff, thinking about things in terms of the fiscal cliff, thinking about things that may have to happen in terms

of revenue, in terms of entitlement cuts, in terms of spending cuts, in terms of like the mega challenges facing us between now and december 31, and first part of next year and any possible grand bargain, just sore of what are your -- anything that's top of mind that you think of that is a challenge for either your party or other guys or just sort of wax on, on that for main or two each. >> i will quote a line from a movie that, you know look it happens every so of on. movie that should win best picture did not. and i will pull from a picture that did not. a movie that did not win best picture that year. i don't remember the specific year but it should have won best picture and that's "rocky 3." and that's when mr. t's character was asked, clever lange was asked right before the fight, he said what's your prediction? and he growled into the camera, prediction? pain. you know. look, there's -- there's a lot

of things that can happen with the fiscal cliff and end of the year and everything like that. and i don't think that either harry reid or john boehner have any idea how it will come out. much less mitt romney or barack obama. so i'm not going to pretend other then it is going to be an all-consuming mess frankly i don't think the public is ready for, has any idea coming and no matter who wins the election, what happens between now and end of the year is going to -- i should say election and end of the year is going to be very dramatic for the country. >> let me refine this and maybe do fred first and then glen. sometimes doing some things to entitlements and domestic spending is pretty inevitable and those are things a democrat will have to deal with and

thinking about sort of the political consequences of that and on the republican side there's got to be more revenue. and defense is going to take some kind of a hit. that's going to be pretty ugly medicine for republicans. you know, fred, if you were sitting down with harry reid and nancy pelosi and steny hoyer or, glen, if you were sitting down with mitch mcconnell or john boehner or eric cantor and they're about to go in the room and get a lot of blood on their hands and be ankle deep in blood -- not to be too vivid -- what would you tell them to be mindful of? >> that's a very good question. and i think it's going to be hard to answer it for a lot of

reasons. one of which the function of time. the other thing would be presumptuous of me. i mean, i will give you an answer but -- >> i have been presumptuous my entire career. >> glen and i are smart guys. well read. good taste in movies apparently. and we know policy. but, look, we're also political people. we're paid to give political advice. my piece of advice would be don't have people like me in the room and, look, we are paid or not paid through sort of point out all of the different angles. i really believe you know, there are times in our country where you're not looking for a, b, c, d from a to z. i'm reading a book on the 1850 compromise. it seemed people listened then.

i think but putting my political hat back on what i would tell them to be mindful of is -- i'm going say this talking to people on the phone, talking to people in focus groups. i'm always, i'm very impressed and feel good as americans, when you get down to it, american people have common sense. they may not like some medicine. like with my kids. now they have new medicines where they put a sweetener in and have it all the time. but they made need the sweetener but fundamentally, we all want to do the right thing. it sounds maybe mr. smithish but don't have people like us in the room and bank on the good common sense of the american people. >> yeah.

i think that this is going to be one where nobody is happy with what comes out. you can't be. if it was easy, it would have been done by now. that's why they kept putting it off. it's damn hard. public opinion is going to be moving sharply. as long as everybody is unhappy, then it's probably a good outcome. >> i want to thank fred and glen, two of the best in the business. and technologies i think we all -- i have learned a lot and have some new thoughts and ideas that i have got from these guys and thank you united technologies for sponsoring this. and "national journal." this is sort of routine things for a high quality smart publication like national journal atlantic media. thank you all for coming out. and see you next time.

>> we has c-span viewers what they thought of the first presidential debate. >> i thought obama could have drilled mitt romney on a lot of. >> i think as a democrat myself, mitt romney had some really good points. obama could have been a lot more aggressive. and do not spend the first 20 seconds of the first presidential debate wishing your wife happy anniversary paired >> mitt romney came out and did what he was supposed to do. he had been on the attack. things were not looking good for him. it was a natural for him to come

out and the defense. >> it was incredible tonight to see mitt romney who has been beat up and dehumanized to finally become human for so many people. but you see a compassionate, extremely well-composed an absolute presidential timber. he really is not only well- versed, but he can hold his own anywhere. and i do not think that has been seen in the last two or three months by most americans cared >> i was really disappointed by the debate. i think that, what president obama had substantive points, he was meandering. i expected better of him. governor romney was pressed on what you're going to do specifically, what are your numbers? he would say things like, let's make up a number. that is not confidence- inspiring. i felt terrible for jim leher

er who was not in control. >> i feel both of the candidates -- did not talk about immigration. they did touch on the jobs going overseas. i fear that is the main key right there -- americans are not making money. >> body language of the candidates was -- romney won that. hefar as romney's ideas, said a lot of stuff about the changes he made to this day. but the entire national stage will be a different idea. and something that is so little far-fetched right now. >> i think it is a draw. they both had their composure. they both made their points.

mr. romney did look a little frustrated a few times. i likened him to a pit bull on a leash. i agree with him on the values, whereas the democratic party i do not agree with their bodies system at all. >> of the body language on these guys. it looks like there were full of crap. and they're just, they keep avoiding the real issues. >> i'd just ahead of this reaction tonight. the entire time romney would be talking, i would say how, how, how? he wanted to say how he was going to do all this stuff. but he did not tell us how. it was extremely frustrated. >> obama did not mention anything about china. he skirted the questions. he was not direct. it was trying to protect mitt.

mitt and confident. when he was attacked on, you do not have details for your plan, this that and the other, i believe he said it every other time -- number one, i did this. number two, we do that. so i think we are going to have a very good debate sessions coming up in the near future. i hope mitt pulls through. >> i thought both candidates did a good job. i was a little more impressed with the president and because of that, i am getting off the fence and i'm going with the president. i think the moderator could have exercised more control. he kind of let romney cut in and takeover more than he should have. i found obama to be more believable. or.as ok with the moderat he allowed us to see the true personalities of the candidates.

>> the debate was not anything very special. i felt that romney was being a bit ridiculous, constantly interrupting obama. overall, i am not very much of a great debate. >> i think the moderator was very disappointing. he did not control the debate at all. obama had much more time than romney. i think a couple of times romney did sort of interrupt but he had to. obama had been on for five minutes. i timed it myself. >> watch and engage on c-span as the vice-presidential candidates debate next thursday in danville, ky. then two more presidential debates. first a town hall in new york. and the final debate from florida focused on foreign policy. >> w >> we need to tackle our

nation's challenges before the attack was. we are putting the ideas on the table. we are not trying to scare seniors. we are going to say benefits for seniors and for my generation so these promises are kept. >> they have laid out clearly, they say, that would barack obama and joe biden did is they in danger of medicare. they stole money from medicare and they have done it to get obama-care. and the eds. you hear it and everything they said. nothing could be further from the truth. >> october 11, congressman paul ryan and the vice president will face off in their only debate. from center college in danville tucky. your reactions at 10:00 third occurred follow our live coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and live at c-span.org.

>> the presidential campaign returns to virginia tomorrow morning. president obama will hold a rally at george mason university in fairfax. att's live here on c-span 10:45 eastern. also on c-span at 11:35 a.m., we will bring you a rally for mitt romney from abingdon in southwestern virginia. attorney general eric holder and health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius told reporters thursday that nearly 100 people are being charged with medicare fraud. this portion of their news conference is 10 minutes. >> good afternoon. today i am joined by department of health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius, the assistant attorney general, lenny brewer, kevin perkins,

hhs deputy inspector general, gary cantrell, and the deputy administrator for the centers of medicare-medicate to announce a critical step in our ongoing fight against health care fraud. over the last 24 months, medicare fraud strike force operations in seven cities had conducted one of the largest take down on record. for a series -- through a series of nationwide law enforcement action, charges have been brought against 91 defendants, including doctors, nurses, and other licensed medical professionals for their alleged participation in fraud schemes involving $430 million in false billings. that includes $230 in whole $49 millionan and an ambulance-transportation fraud. thanks to the outstanding work of federal authorities and the

assistance of our state and local partners, most of these individuals have been arrested or have been -- or have surrendered. charges include health care fraud, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, wire fraud, violations of the anti-kickback issues, identity theft, and money laundering. these charges are based on fraudulent activities involving treatment and services that were medically unnecessary or, in some cases, never actually rendered, ranging from home health care and mental health services to psychotherapy, physical and occupational therapy, durable medical equipment services, and the largest ambulance a fraud scheme ever prosecuted by the medicare fraud strike force. such activity not only siphons taxpayer resources, drive up costs and jeopardized the strength of the medicare program, they also victimize the most vulnerable members of our

society, including the elderly, disabled, and impoverished americans. unfortunately, we allege many of those charged not only broke the law but violated their professional obligations and sacred oath as medical practitioners. for example, in one case in dallas, the doctor and two registered nurses are charged with writing more than 30,000 prescriptions for over 2000 medicare beneficiaries resulting in $100 million in fraud. these alleged actions represent an alarming and unacceptable nationwide trend. of individuals attempting to exploit federal health care programs and to steal billions in tax payer dollars purely for personal gain. but we are fighting back. and today's take down underscores the fact that federal efforts to combat health care fraud have never been more strategic, more comprehensive, or more effective. since the creation of the health

care fraud prevention and enforcement action team in may, 2009, preventing and shutting down health care fraud schemes has become a top priority for the justice department and for hhs and for the entire administration and for our partners at every level of government and across public and private sectors. today's announcement represents the fifth concern -- and for some action taken under heat. there is no question this level of commitment is paying dividends. joint doj/hhs medicare fraud strike forces are operating in nine locations nationwide -- miami, los angeles, detroit, houston, a brooklyn, baton rouge, tampa, chicago, and dallas. since the first strike force in 2007, the teams have charged 1500 defendants for falsely building -- billing medicare for $4.8 billion.

those convicted received an average prison sentence of four years. in addition to disrupting health care fraud schemes and advancing prosecutions, we are working to return precious funds to the public coffers. since 2009, we have recovered $10.6 billion. over the same period, for every dollar spent on combating fraud, we have returned more than $7 to the united states treasury, the medicare trust fund, and others. however, as today's announcement proves, we are not yet satisfied. in the fight against fraud, we will never become complacent. we are taking the fight to a new level by expanding engagement with, state, local and tribal partners and streamlining federal investigations and prosecutions and by leveraging resources and expertise. in each of our strike force locations, we are moving aggressively to eradicate health care fraud in all its forms to strengthen federal health care

programs and to bring perpetrators of fraud crimes to justice. i want to thank each of the dedicated investigators, prosecutors, law enforcement officers and agency partners whose tireless, collaborative work has made today's announcement possible. they stand on the front line of our efforts to shut down large scale fraud schemes like those detailed in the indictments handed down today. their actions prove that despite the size of the challenge we face, progress is in possible. and their dedication to this work is sending a clear message to those who are tempted to commit health care fraud that we will use every available resource to find you, stop you, and punish you to the fullest extent of the law. this time it is my privilege to turn over the podium to and other critical leader in this work, my good friend the secretary kathleen sebelius. >> thank you very much.

i want to start by recognizing the terrific leadership that the general and his department have brought to this effort. we are very pleased to be partners in the historic effort to crack down on fraud that bilks taxpayers out of billions of dollars. i want to recognize our other partners here, the federal bureau of investigation and others in the justice department. our inspector general, our new program integrity administrator, all play critical roles in this process. announcement represents another setback for criminals intent on lining their pockets from the medicare trust fund. as the general just said, our enforcement efforts have led to dramatic increases in antifraud

prosecutions and record recovery's over the last three years. in partnership with law enforcement, both at the national, state and local level, we have taken down criminal enterprises and that in some cases have been robbing government health programs and taxpayers for years. these efforts will continue, but just as important, we have begun putting in place a comprehensive set of measures for preventing fraud from happening at all. with these new tools in the affordable care act, we made it harder for crooks to submit fraudulent claims and get paid. for example, we have established tougher screening procedures for providers and suppliers who want to participate in medicare. including unannounced site visits in areas susceptible to fraud, like home health care and durable medical equipment. we have begun a systematic review of all of the providers and suppliers already in the system, which has led to nearly

20,000 providers and suppliers being deactivated. we have also begun monitoring claims in real time, using innovative software that can detect suspicious billing patterns. if the supplier is billing for a high number of electric wheelchairs, for example, we can now suspend payment while we conduct an investigation to be sure they are legitimate. and when criminals to get caught, they are facing tougher penalties. medicare and medicaid fraud not only ross taxpayers. it also jeopardize the future of the program that more than 100 million americans depend on every day. the new penalties reflect the seriousness of the crime. dictating sentences of between 20 and 50 years for the largest offenses. finally, we have put in place some common-sense safeguards to prevent bad actors who have been kicked out of medicare from continuing to build state

medicaid programs as if nothing has happened. simply put, health care fraud has never been a worse position than it is today. it is harder to get into the system. you are more likely to get caught if you do make a fraudulent claim. and when you do, you will pay a bigger prize. what motivates these efforts is the administration's commitment to keeping medicare and medicaid strong for those americans today and for future generations. . . rwwww

>> i believe that the drawdown in afghanistan is well- positioned. i am actually an advocate of something that is more accelerated. i have been for quite some time. i believe we focus on a counter- terrorism effort that would mean lost lives and national treasure. >> our next question is for bob menendez. >> you say you support a comprehensive solution including revenues and cuts in spending. can you name one wasteful program. to successfully eliminated while you have been in congress? >> the f 22. this is something that even the pentagon did not want.

the administration did not want. there are those who are advocating for it. i voted against the f22. i voted on a different alternative fighter engine that was not necessary as well. that was cut. those are 2 examples of programs that were cut. what i do not want to do is what my opponent says -- he basically embraces the lion budget. what does that budget to do? it ends medicare as we know it. makes it a voucher. privatizes social security. dramatically cut assistance to education in our country. as someone who grew up, the first of my country to go to program, i want loans to be out there and keeping student loan interest rates low so that everyone can achieve an education. it is very important to do this and a balanced way.

>> one i am there we are going to have a joe kyrillos -- i will work on end compromise along the way, without sacrificing principle with my colleagues. and with the executive branch. and so, there you go. talk about congressman ryan, it is always the other guy's fault. you have been there a long time. i think your entire term. i have some specific plans. we have discipline here in new jersey. it is not always pretty. but when we deal with our state budget, we do what we need to do. we work hard. and we make things right. we now spend 24% of the economy on the government. i want to get it down to its historic place of closer to 20%

over time. that will take work. and it will take some time. but we have no choice. >> a question for joe kyrillos. >> as the united states senator, you would be called upon to vote up or down on supreme court nominees. do you have a litmus test, and could you vote in the affirmative vote for a justice who you believe might find offensive marriage act, which determines that same-sex couples are not entitled to federal benefits, unconstitutional? and could you folks in the affirmative afford justice and might reverse roe versus wade? >> will not have a litmus test. i have some experience helping to nominate judges, confirming judges to the state superior

court. and to the state supreme court as a member of the judiciary and a member of the state senate. and i am going to look to nominees for their intellect. their experience. for their previous position to not legislate from the bench. and what we will look to nominees of either party and -- we will look to nominees of either party and treat them fairly as i have in the past. >> i agree with my opponent that this is very important to anyone who wants to be a justice of the supreme court. certainly, intellect, temperament, experience, observance of the rule of law and precedents. but the supreme court is the final word of what is the law of the land.

and therefore, i do not want to see more justice scalias, is a discrimination against women and discrimination based on gender is not protected against under the constitution. when i go by the supreme court on my way to work, it says equal justice under law, it does not say equal justice for some people and not for others. and as relates to roe versus wade, i support roe versus wade. i support a woman's right to choose. my opponent, i do not know what choice he has. here last said he was pro-life, now he says he is pro-choice. >> a question for bob menendez. >> there is a complaint that the 2010 federal care act will be expensive and coming to profit. have you respond to critics that

argue that implementing this policy will wind up costing even more american jobs? >> the reality is that, what did we have the for the law? a double-digit premium increases, of sustainable for the private sector who wants to offer insurance for their employees. unsustainable for families that may not get it through work and need to purchase it. millions of people and our country, including 1.5 million people.ey hand insurance companies could freely discriminate against people based on pre-existing conditions. all that was largely done away with with the affordable care act. when we get to full implementation. many small businesses and our state have already begun to get access to the subsidies to offer insurance.

and so controlling costs, moving toward preventive health care system, and making sure that we end the discrimination on insurance, and making sure people are covered savannah driving the cost -- so they are not driving the cost in an emergency room, that will be good for business. >> we can talk about it now or in another time -- with regard to judges, i think it is some point we will talk about the judge that you held up for so long. but the question in hand was, the affordable care act? listen, there's no question that we have got a big challenges in our country. and there are elements so called obama care. i saw last night that he did not mind having it referred to that way. and i supported them here in new

jersey, people with pre-existing illnesses should be covered. young adults should have some time, perhaps, to stay on their parents policies. but this law comes at a very, very high cost. times 20 new taxes. >> next question. earlier in the debate, you said is too often do that the country has experienced 43 months of over 8% unemployment. and under website, under joe's plan, you say and new jersey, joe kyrillos and gov. christie have shown that there's a better way. why is unemployment in this state -- to 9.9% if you shown a

better way? >> would not have a strong national economy. because senator bob menendez and his colleagues and the executive branch are following a pass that is failing us. and if we elect them yet again, we will get more of the same. there's nothing wrong with our new jersey economy. that our growing national economy would not cure. here at home, we are doing everything we can to make things right. we are balancing our budget, doing it without tax increases, rolling out economic incentives, changing the culture of new jersey. we do things in a bipartisan way, because many of our successes -- almost all of them by necessity, we do with a democratic leadership in the legislature. can you imagine if you are a former senator, governor kors sign was governor of the state

-- governor corzine was a governor of the state? i cannot imagine a new jersey would be doing better. we are not an island. we need a good american economy to come back. russified it interesting that our opponent would like to cast all of the national ills as my doorstop. property taxes are the highest -- among the highest in the nation. you have tuition rates growing dramatically. you have a less teachers in the class ies. you have unemployment high. when we bring money, like under the home program, $300 million to get people in their homes. they do not have the oversight to make sure it gets used. so the reality is that, what i have been doing is working to create jobs in new jersey.

$52 million for biotech companies. 750 new projects and new jersey pushing people to work. 10,000 people working in the solar industry in new jersey alone. i failed to do what i was able to do in that regard. the new transportation bill. this is how we put this economy -- >> you know that come january 1 we are looking at a fiscal cliff on taxes? you say that united states support, you will support extending them for everyone except the upper two brackets even though people disproportional we live in new jersey. what will you do if republicans continue that all the tax cuts be extended? will you increase -- >> i hear my opponent talk about

the debt. if you just continue all the tax cuts, and you continued to treat capital gains and dividends and everything and then lower the rates as he wants to, my god, i do not know, but that arithmetic does not work. the bottom line is that something has to give. my fight is for middle-class families and new jersey. that is why i voted to continue the last set of tax cuts. the republicans held middle- class tax cuts hostage to tax cuts for the wealthy. my fight was to expand the trial tax credit. my fight was to treat the educational opportunity tax ians.t that helped new jerse to ensure that more than 2 million new jersians do not

have the alternative minimum tax. >> here are the facts. everybody's tax rates are going to go up in january. that is the plan. that is the schedule. i think a disturbed that is what the senator and breezes and wants. it is not about millionaires and billionaires. it is about the middle class. the two supposedly cares so much about. because those are the people that work for the small businesses that will be disproportionately impacted. one out of six people in america who work in the private sector will be impacted by these tax rates. the national federation of independent businesses said that if they go, we will lose 700,000 jobs in this country. in new jersey, do you know how many? 20,000.

michael just talked about the new jersey unemployment rate. we have got hundreds of thousands of people out of work now. do we really want to raise taxes on people now? and of more people out of work? and get rid of reductions and exemptions that john patapsco and. simplify things. >> a question for joe kyrillos. >> congress did away with earmarks. officially. no one has ever wanted them unless they come back to their home district. how would you bring back dollars to new jersey in this environment. and what would you identify as the most pressing new jersey project in need of fiscal funding? >> unfortunately, these guys abuse be earmarked process.

there were excessive. and of course now we are at a point with our debt problems that we cannot afford them. so i am going to fight tooth and nail -- within the confines of form and other plans that exist for people to compete. and i am going be very active around the state. we lost a big army base. people all around new jersey. sure where you were in that fight. i did not see you. we lost that base. lost those jobs. they moved to aberdeen, maryland and a sky high price tag for the american taxpayer. >> time, sir.

>> that is what we have to work for. >> thank you, sir. >> look, joe, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. the reality is that when the base -- i did not have the privilege at the time when that was going under, was going on. so, that is not when you cannot subscribe to me. i joined colleagues who were representing the area to be supportive. but suggesting that all of the taxes will go up in january. that is a great scare told, but not a reality. no one will allow that to take place in a lame duck session. they used until not too long ago we did christmas tree items.

i am sure you had your share. earmarks' is taking part of the federal budget that is going to exist no matter what and sang -- do you know what, there are some important things in my state, i know better. a new hudson tunnel -- very important. >> i give you five seconds. plus the five seconds the president wanted last night. >> would you please out why it your position on the issue of choice. and if you could please explain any inconsistencies throughout your political career on this stance. >> i have been consistent in my position of choice, and the right of women to choose. i thought roe versus wade. i have voted in ways to allow women to have the critical health care they need so that they can make their own

decisions and have the health care they need. which dramatically expanded health care and access to contraception under affordable care act, which i support. and my opponent, however, last year he self identified, as was running for the state senate as pro-life. now he says he is pro-choice. as i said earlier, we cannot afford to be a multiple choice. and so, i have a very clear and consistent and continuous record in supporting a woman's right to choose. and i do not seek to abrogate that right. i want women to make their decisions about their health care and their bodies. >> your response. >> it is a very serious subject. and i will have to go look to whatever this that you are referring to, bob. i voted for and advocated for

some pro-life initiatives that reflects the seriousness of the subject. at the end of the day, i think you need to make up your own mind. i have always felt that way. but i believe in a criminal -- for young teenagers. i would support a short waiting period. and i do not believe in the third trimester abortions. the europeans focus and a similar way. what people make up their own mind, but they have reasonable constraints that reflect the seriousness of this subject. and that is how i feel. unlike most americans, most people in new jersey, most people -- a like most americans, most people in new jersey, most people feel the same way. i have sort of millions of dollars for women's health. >> we have reached that time

already. burgoyne to start with the closing statements. if covered -- we are going to start with the closing statements. thank you for discussing these issues to the american people as we prepare to make a decision on election day. the candidates get 90 seconds for their closing statements. a reminder once again, the audience, refrain from applause until they finished speaking. there's a point tossed to decide who would go first and second. senator kyrillos, please begin. >> thank you. well this debate offers a really clear contrast. after 20 years in washington -- i am ready for more of the same. i am offering real promises and that we can do better. as real simple.

more of the same -- a better future from joe kyrillos. my father came to new jersey and look for better life. you worked hard and he found it. that is the american dream. i believe in that dream. i believe in the opportunity for people to work hard to better themselves and to make a great life for themselves and their family. the senator said he is worthy of the middle class. i am concerned about the middle class. the middle class is not doing very well. joe biden when it flipped out the other day. they have been buried. buried under debt. buried out of work. buried with high gas prices. senator, if you listen closely, you will realize that if we reelect him, you are going to get more of the same. more taxes on the middle class. and more peril for our

children's future. america is in a crisis. if you can't believe that we can do better, as i do, that we can improve -- improve the lives for all of our citizens, put them back to work and keep this american dream alive and well for our children, grandchildren -- you will choose me. >> thank you. >> the middle class is under attack. that is why i have been fighting back. i led the charge to crack down on wall street's abuse of practices and credit card company abuses of practices. those things that can help them be able to raise their families. my opponent, most of the -- votes for tax breaks against millionaires. -- and closed the prescription drug coverage for seniors.

you want to repeal the law that made all of that possible. i supported tax credits and incentives that make work pay here and stop sending it abroad. and yet there are tax provisions that give credit to companies that actually take jobs abroad. i have voted to close those. my opponent has plans that are very different. i thought for equal pay for equal work and help tax law that those that. and delivered federal funding for health care. -- women's health care. my opponent walked out on women. not once but not wise, but six times, you voted against funding for women's health care in our state while i was bringing millions of dollars for those women to get health care. his boats put thousands of teachers out of the claws are geared my votes but thousands of teachers back into those classrooms. understand the challenges

that people are facing in this state. i will continue to fight for the middle class. that is why i ask for your vote in this election geared >> we will leave it there. we thank you sincerely for coming here. we ask you to come out and state your case and make your opinions known. you did it. you did it cybele. we close now thanks to our panelists. to the record and the herald news for their support and sponsorship. and to montclair state university. and the candidates again -- senator kyrillos, senator menendez. and from the school of music at montclair state university, i am mike schneider. thank you for watching. and to our audience, thank you very much.

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] this morning we will be joined by ann coulter. and we will take your questions about manufacturing and the united states economy. our guests are chris from the census bureau and will start reporter eric. washington journal is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the presidential campaign returns to virginia this morning. president obama will hold a rally at george mason in fairfax. that is live here on c-span at 10:45. also on c-span at 11:35, will bring you a rally for mitt romney from abington. >> this month as a presidential

candidate mitt for debate, we are asking middle and high school student's to send a message to the president as part of this year's student cam birdneck metric competition. in a short video there will answer, was a most important issue the president to consider in 2013, to win the grand prize of $5,000. the competition is open to students in grades 6 through 12. online to studentcam.org. >> next a symposium on partisan politics and compromise. this 1.5 our event is hosted by the university of southern california says schwarzenegger institute. panelists include john mccain d.d former senator tom battl [applause] >> we all breed the same

air. please welcome governor arnold schwarzenegger. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you very much. for the fantastic introduction. that is exactly the way i voted. and also, thank you very much for your great partnership. one thing i want to correct is that i did not win miss universe.

bikinis, waxing and -- i did not win that. is mr. universe. i wanted to say how enthusiastic i am about being in a partnership with usc. we were drawn to the president 's extraordinary vision and commitment to usc, and to the the schwarzenegger institute. i am looking forward to appearing all over the world and leaving audiences scratching our heads and saying, what the did he just say? he is a great leader and we are very lucky to have you. [applause]

i also want to say thank you to bonnie, the new global director of the sport's a neighbor institute. she is been marmoset for decades, helping to coordinate after-school programs, and being my adviser was governor. and the most important -- being a great friend. thank you very much to buy a read. and thank you to be professor, the esteemed and economic director. as soon as i was told about this genius tax and budget professor, that he was stolen away from northwestern, i knew that we had to have him. it is great to have the on the team. thank you very much. [applause] also, a huge thank you to -- an absolute joy to work with. the love, the passion and the

interest in this institute from day one. thank you very much. [applause] and finally, i want to say thank you to jack. and a real public policy team. jack is not just a genius. is an expert in breaking through bureaucracy purity believes in action. -- through bureaucracy. he believes in action. i also want to say thank you to all of the palace better here. i know that they are all very busy and important people. and they are taken the time to come here from all over the country. to participate in this panel discussion. this very important discussion. let us give them a big hand and say thank you. [applause] and also, a big thank you to the

students that are here today. 300 of the students had to be turned away, there was such a huge interest. anyone below 10% body fat was allowed to come and. the only way i could choose to select the people. [laughter] i look around and i can feel the promise and potential. is energizing. it is fantastic to see this great enthusiasm. the day we launched the schwarzenegger institute, this is not just a day for celebration. this is a date for commitment. a day for promised. a day for debate and discussion and brainstorming. a date for growth. we are going to have a lot of fun. do not worry about that. as governor, i must tell you, i broke a lot of roles. never thought about things in a

partisan way. and insiders in sacramento could never understand that. for instance, when i tried to pass health care reform, they said, but you are republican. you cannot do that. i did not pay attention to them. when i fired the democrat chief of staff, they said you cannot do that. i did not listen. almost half of my judiciary apartments for democrats feared they said your republican, you do not do that. so i broke the rules. i broke the rules because i was working for the people of california and wanted to serve the people well. in the process, discovered my own rules. there are the rules but i used to govern. those are the very rules that will direct the vision of this institute. first, the best policies are written in the actions of fear.

the same stories that the political arena is taxed and filled with fear. they always worry so much about the poll numbers. or the election coming up. i believe that it takes true courage to create meaningful action. second, you cannot just rely on big national governments. because many times, states and cities and people can move much faster. and you can ever forget the power of the private sector. the nonprofit sector and the academic sector. all of them together with the public sector can really come up with a great solutions. and finally, no ideology has a monopoly on solutions. you can run an election from the right and left, but you cannot really run a state. so this is the framework of the schwarzenegger institute that we will work.

as we try to improve the people's lives. [applause] >> there was no better place to continue our work and right here at usc, the act of them a window to the world. -- the academic window to the world. usc is constantly exporting brilliant ideas around the globe. they have a gloried past. but it also envisions a path into the future. the faculty and students learn from innovate, experiment and take risks to respond to the new circumstances and challenges. in all fields, usc research has the respect of the world. because they never fail to bring the best minds together. without careful ideology or the ways of the past, this is rightfully a proud institution.

i am so proud to have you as my partner. [applause] as i assume my chair, i cannot help but think of governor downey's position. his vision as governor of the state of california. gov. down a tick on the special interest way back and beat 60's. -- in it the 60's. his appearances in support of his -- fistfights' would break out in different places. i literally say that he was the first action governor of

california. was the first immigrant to lead our great state. we have a lot in common. for me, it is a true honor to serve in this role. look forward to the schwarzenegger institute of helping to preserve and grow the california dream that brought gov. downey and me to this great state. the goal of our institute is not only to share what i have learned as governor, and what i did as governor, but to continue to look -- the work that is unfinished. everyone comes in as governor of the long list of goals. if you finish half of them, you are lucky. i was one of the lucky ones. the promise, because of that, because so many things run finished, will continue even after my term ends. to give back to california and back to the world. that is exactly what we will do your apiece schwarzenegger institute. my term as governor came to an end.

but the people's work never stops. today, we begin that work by discussing some of the lessons that shaped my time in office. the best ideas often require political courage. the schwarzenegger institute can and must be a megaphone for those ideas. we must give a voice to the true reformers were too often found and a halt of power. the status quo is truly a powerful monster. it resists change of all times. can reduce the best ideas, but if you do not have political courage, you have nothing. to use a scholarly phrase, meaningful change takes balls. [laughter] that is my quote.

i learned that over and over one was governor. when we took on reform, people said you are crazy. it is never going to happen. just quit while you are ahead. the correct system -- this system has been in place for over 200 years. politicians would never give up the power. they spent millions of dollars against us. reform failed five times. no one. scare us or discourage us. we had the courage to keep fighting. we knew that is what it takes to create real change. reno something, it paid off. the sixth time, it paid , it succeeded.

not of the special interests, and not for the politicians who only care about their career. [laughter] [applause] political sewage is not political suicide. the power of regional governments -- they have tremen. states waiting for the federal government to do something. to create some policy, to make a move. california, we did not wait. we did not wait for an international treaty. we just moved forward. i remember washington was ever enthusiastic about infrastructure. you know how much we are falling behind on infrastructure nationwide, compared to the rest of the world.

we said yes to infrastructure in california. and now you can see construction and affordable housing and other projects all across the state of california. washington said no to stem cell research. imagine, we said yes, and we invested $3 billion. as a matter of fact, right here at usc, we have one of the great centers for stem cell research. and they are drawing money for their center. washington said no to our landmark law. the list goes on and on. we move forward. some of the most powerful solutions come from local government and the grass roots. the people power. not from washington, not from moscow or beijing. and finally, i learned that a

post partisan way of governing is the most effective way. if you believe you can only use the ideas of the left and the right, you would never be able to move forward. never go and be successful. we saw that in california and other states. lives in the post partisanship grow all over the world. we will bring the most brilliant ideas to the forefront, no matter what the ideology is behind it. that is our mission. we will research with all of the brain power that we can muster. and we will produce what can be used not only for the states, but all over the world. we will debate and research the best ideas, this is an action institute. to protect and export the california dream, to inspire a local action, and to --

consolations for the people. we want to make sure our politicians become public servants, not party servants or special interest servants. i am most proud of -- we will bring usc students into this mission. it is important that they are part of this and every step of the way. lessons are them to become a new generation of leaders. let us harness their great power and bring them into the process. let us embrace the potential of these great minds. ladies and gentlemen, we will have the vision and the courage to change and to improve the world we all know that the work never stops. thank you very much.

>> thank you. now we want to bring out two of the most powerful women, and i'm talking about bonnie reese and nancy stout. please welcome both of them. thank you. >> thank you very much, governor. thank you very much and welcome to our inaugural symposium. today is wonderful event for u.s.c. and new schwarzenegger institute for state and global policy. when i think about u.s.c. and schwarzenegger institute working together, i know great things are in store for us. collaboration is outstanding for so many reasons because primarily schwarzenegger institute will foster teamwork and new partnerships with

various centers and institutes in and around u.s.c. and other universities and around the world. this inaugural symposium marks the beginning so many alliances and relationships. today is special not only because of the incredible people who are participating as panelists and audience members but because today will showcase what the institute will do for years into the future. we will collaborate with people inside and outside u.s.c., discuss the critical issues of the day, debate ideas and learn. we will learn from each other. when provost beth garrett let me know the schwarzenegger institute was coming to u.s.c., i was more than a little thrilled to be invited to join the institute team. why is the schwarzenegger institute so exceptional, so distinctive and so unrivaled? first the institute is committed to changing the way we talk about policy and changing the way we talk about politics. we should passionately hold our beliefs. we should actively be involved. we should help shape policy outcomes but come to the table

and learn from each other and collaborate. not only do we have a civic duty to engage but civic duty to engage in a productive way, post partisan way. i'm excited to be academic of director of the institute whose mission it is to foster this post partisan behavior in policy circles, in classrooms and in the public at large. the schwarzenegger institute created an all together different sore of team. the chairman of the institute, governor schwarzenegger and now my colleague, professor schwarzenegger, will play an active role in the institute's operations. governor schwarzenegger will not only help to shape major events in policy discussions such as those that have taken place

today but he will literally be working on the ground here on u.s.c.'s campus. one example, professor schwarzenegger will play a key role in the class i'm teaching of the students in the class, all of whom are here, will be presenting their projects to him some time soon. as a long-term member of the academic community, i can tell you that we gauge success by looking to three criteria, publications, student involvement and community service. well, professor schwarzenegger has just published a book. he will be involved in classroom activities and hosting this inaugural symposium. he might already be ready for a promotion. as i mentioned most have an academic director but being ambitious and determined the institute went one step further in appointing a global director bonnie reese. wow, this appointment has changed the nature of the organization. it's affected activities, our strategies and plans. having a person such as bonnie reese, who's been successful lawyer, successful entrepreneur, senior adviser to the governor, secretary of education and this is to name

just a few of her achievements ensures our team thinks big, bold and gets things done. case in point, we announced the creation of the schwarzenegger on august 2, and it's now 54 days later, here we are all 750 of us. before i sit down, i want to make a comment about the class that i'm teaching. this class grew out of the role of institutes and role of young people. we think young people not only help shape our conversations but they're important because they will be the next leaders. to foster the role of young people, we created a class called leadership for a post partisan era. the students in the class organized themselves into thinking teams to discuss critical issues. for example, chelsea wood is a

master student in the price school of public policy. she grew up here in los angeles not far from here. she noted her neighborhood was and still is virtually devoid of healthy food options. in her word a food wasteland. chelsea and her teammate andrew christopher helped to raise awareness through sophisticated use of social media and devised solutions to put an end to the so-called food desert. two master students from china are studying here at u.s.c. calia and sojuia are interested in young people to learn not just u.s.c. but universities around the world. sceneer they're writing a play and shooting a film about the importance of learning abroad, sharing ideas and becoming global leaders. this will be on youtube soon. each of the students along with all of the other students in my class will have a chance to showcase on campus and to new professor, professor schwarzenegger. i'm absolutely thrilled to be teaching this class with the students and be part of this leadership team housed in our new schwarzenegger institute. i'm positive our future will be exciting, productive and unrivaled.

i would like to end by welcoming you to our inaugural symposium. i have no doubt our conversation today will be spectacular. i will turn to the institute's global director and my friend bonnie reese. \[applause] >> thank you so much, nancy and to arnold for committing his time, resources, energy and talent to creating an institute that will be engaged in critically important policy work that will impact the lives of people in california, in america and across the globe. i can think of no more perfect partner then u.s.c., who reach is global and whose vision and ideals are huge. while arnold thanks u.s.c. president and provost, i want to also thank them. for the past month since i moved into my u.s.c. offices, this

campus has become my home away from home. when you're on the outside of u.s.c., you hear about how they're one of the best universities in the world. when you become part of their community, you understand why. some of the best and brightest from california and all regions of the world, u.s.c. creates a culture that reflects their belief that for their students, our nation and our world, the possibilities are limitless. to fulfill this promise to u.s.c. students, smartest, most committed professors, researchers and scholars comprised of faculty and staff and are already engaged in supporting the work of our institute. i also want to thank max and beth garrett for their wisdom in asking dean jack naught of the price school of public policy if they would provide a home for our institute. another brilliant and perfect decision. jack and the price school of public policy are perfectly

aligned with the grand vision of arnold and institute. bringing the best thought leaders in public policy both academic and real world together to educate our students and not just provide thoughtful understanding of the policies of our day but focus as well on turning it into action. arnold and u.s.c. leadership expect great thing it's this institute and we fully intend to deliver. in slightly over one month from when we announced the formation of the institute to today's inaugural event, we put together world class board of advisers and academic council. we have promotional materials and website focused on explaining our mission and engaging both students and others to join with us. we have established collaborations with other organizations and leaders who share our goals and doing meaningful work in the areas we will focus on. i want to thank the remarkable men and women serving on our

board of advisers and serving on our academic council from other respected universities around the world and thank those of them that are here with us today. our academic director nancy stout, who teaches at the law school assembled our great academic council and is also fulfilling the mission of the institute by teach ago class in post partisanship at the public policy school. the institute has only two full-time people -- me and the extraordinary amanda, my right and left hand. so it is important that i acknowledge that all we have done in just over a month including creating this great symposium and all we will continue to do is only possible because of the support of u.s.c. and price school. so a special thank you to jen, regina nordall, carol rush, january peterson, heidi row sano and big thank you as well to the u.s.c. event team, public safety team and u.s.c. communications team.

to all of you, thank you so much. we are both proud and excited -- thank you. \[applause] we are both proud and excited for the leaders here gathered for today's important conversations and overwhelming outpouring of interest and attending from students and nonstudents including so many leaders from business, nonprofits and governments around the world. today is a beginning but it's also a continuation. having served as both senior adviser and secretary of education to governor schwarzenegger, running this institute is not just an opportunity to continue so many of the great initiatives that arnold in california were at the forefront of but an opportunity for so many committed public servants who worked on those initiatives to see their legacy continue. many of those people are here today, including the governor's chief of staff susan kennedy, many cabinet secretaries, press

secretaries, legislative deputies and top advisers and i thank them all for helping us continue this important work. toay's symposium is intended start conversations that advance our mission. the more than panel is about our belief that our country and our world is at its best when our leaders put people over politics. we are grateful for the caliber of internationally respected u.s.c. leaders who you will shortly hear from. institutes intends to continue to bring great leaders together regardless of party affiliation and to support what arnold referred to in his 2007 inaugural speech as post partisanship. we will work to enact policies to promote post partisanship and explore causes of political polarization that seems to keep our leaders from working to solve the biggest problems. issues like redistricting, open primaries, campaign finance and impact of special interests and role of news media and internet will all be explored.

in preparing for today, we reached out to dozens of leaders. while unable to join us today, they all enthusiastically express support for this mission. christie todd whitman, evan bayh, conde rice, dianne feinstein, erskine bowles and alan simpson are some of the great leaders who agree other nation is at its best when our leaders work together. and we will work together with all leaders in advancing post partisanship and supporting a climate where our leaders work together to solve our problems. our lunch discussion today reflects our principle of the institute that local solutions best address global challenges. whether by citizens, organizations or states.

our policy focus for that discussion is one that's near and dear to arnold, california and frankly billions of people across the globe, environment, energy and climate. and our afternoon panel reflects our belief in the power of people and innovation. arnold may have led the eighth largest economy on earth but he understands rarely does great innovation come from government. as governor he reached out to innovators and leaders in the private sector to get best ideas for california and believed in the power of private and public partnerships. institute is committed to commit to continue this philosophy and seek out support and convene best innovators to help us find real world solutions to the great public policy challenges we face. today we have selected a panel of media leaders representing film, television and music for our afternoon discussion. these leaders in this industry are among great innovators of our time. they're also in an industry that more than any other industry impacts popular culture and is often specifically targeted important culture issues. archie bunker and "all in the family" made us reflect on

bigotry. "will & grace" and "glee" on sexual orient ace and most recently aaron sorkin and "newsroom" have us talking about the role of news media in covering politics. of course, we also recognize the power of celebrity. sometimes more successful used then others but successful efforts include the great work of sean penn with "haiti, george clooney's work with the sudan and brad pitt's work with helping sustainably rebuild new orleans. my compelled to also add work over 20 years ago running the earth communications office which used the power of media to do large public awareness campaigns on environmental issues. i'm compelled not to share my credentials and expertise in this area but to share it with you how even then big-time action star arnold schwarzenegger supported smart environmental causes like recycling. \[laughter] for those of us who can't read this poster, it is of arnold as

commando saying, i recycle more with my pinky then you do with both hands. recycle now and thank me later. so, ladies and gentlemen, we thank you for being here. we hope you enjoy the day and we encourage you to stay involved in the work of the institute. now it's my great pleasure to get the morning panel discussion going by introducing the moderator, who is a hero of mine. with over 40 years broadcasting this trail blazing journalist is political commentator for abc news and also does political analysis for npr. i wanted to make sure a proper introduction of my hero was done so i asked her what two things she was most proud of, thinking in might be winning three emmys, being inducted into the broadcasting hall of fame, being listed as one of the 50

greatest women in the history of broadcasting, maybe writing her best-selling books or maybe being named as living legend by the library of congress. but no, this great woman said the two things she's most proud of is, first, having raised two fabulous human beings who are now raising their own fabulous human beings. and second, taking a trip first to indonesia, where it's over 100 degrees then to pakistan, where it was 25 degrees and where she had to be prepared to stay in tents and go to embassy parties and she was able to do this trip all with car question- on luggage. -- carry on luggage. \[laughter] ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the amazing cokie roberts. \[applause] >> thank you. thank you. this isex